DempsteroutpitchedAtilano, Bruney tried really hard to lose it, but the Nats still won another close game. That's 8 of 12 wins decided by 2 runs or less. Reminds me of simpler times when velour tracksuits hung in the GM office and the manager drifted off to sleep sometime before the end of the national anthem.

Given the Nats are more a 8-14 team than a 12-10 team pretty soon we're going to get into that territory where the "Why can't the gritty Nats bear down their red-asses and keep grittily winning in a never-say-die, gritty, old-school, dirty, hard-nosed kind of way........Gritty!" fans start to clash with the "Well, 95 times out of 100 this type of team will begin to play at a level commensurate with their ability" kids. This was what June-August 2005 was all about.

Ah, those were good times. I like being right.

This team isn't the 2005 Nats because they have good players coming (Strasburg and Storen) rather than the Junior Spiveys and Preston Wilsons of old, so the longer they keep this up the less precipitous will likely be the fall back. But still the main difference between that team and this one is that this team could be legitimately good in 2-3 years, while that one was a one year wonder with no future. That's what makes 2010 so exciting, not a run at the playoffs. (and trust me that talk will come if they keep winning)

6 comments:

Talking about a run for the playoffs when your team is marginal is what gets fans through until their team is actually good. If the Nats are still hovering slightly above .500 in June, I will certainly drink the Kool-Aid. Why else be so devoted?

Mark - both. I like to cover my bases. Negative because much like 2005, I expect the Nats to drop back to a pace equal to their talent (so watch out for some nice strings of losses) Positive because unlike 2005 it's real doubtful in 5 years the Nats will still be trying to climb out of the cellar.

Hoo - yeah the issue is the offense (with a savvy FA/trade move or two) could be ready for a push now and in 2011 but the pitching (and Bryce Harper?) should be fully forming in 2012 (Strasburg with a year plus under his belt, ZNN fully back from injury, Lannan only 27). If they bet on 2011-2012 and keep Dunn and Willingham around (morgan is under control for a lot longer - so he'll be here) then they might run into a circumstance with them under contract and falling apart when the pitching is peaking. If they bet on 2013-2014 and trade those two for prospects a year or two off then the Nats are bound to drop back down for a year or so.

3 cogs of the offense Morgan, Dunn, and Willingham are 29,30, and 31 respectively

Exactly- not all trades involve prospects that won't contribute for a long time. There is the potential to trade for close to the majors prospects or prospects that are blocked by players on their big league team. I'd like to see Rizzo make a couple of those types of moves to keep this team competitive now and into the future.